ArticleScientific reports2023
A comparison of manual and automated neural architecture search for white matter tract segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Generalizability in Deep Learning-Based White Matter Tract Segmentation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- 3D TractFormer: 3D Direct Volumetric White Matter Tract Segmentation with Hybrid Channel-Wise Transformer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of Fully Convolutional Neural Networks in the Assessment of Cerebral White Matter Involvement in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.Neuroinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Segmentation of white matter tracts in diffusion magnetic resonance images is an important first step in many imaging studies of the brain in health and disease. Similar to medical image segmentation in general, a popular approach to white matter tract segmentation is to use U-Net based artificial neural network architectures. Despite many suggested improvements to the U-Net architecture in recent years, there is a lack of systematic comparison of architectural variants for white matter tract segmentation. In this paper, we evaluate multiple U-Net based architectures specifically for this purpose. We compare the results of these networks to those achieved by our own various architecture changes, as well as to new U-Net architectures designed automatically via neural architecture search (NAS). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically compare multiple U-Net based architectures for white matter tract segmentation, and the first to use NAS. We find that the recently proposed medical imaging segmentation network UNet3+ slightly outperforms the current state of the art for white matter tract segmentation, and achieves a notably better mean Dice score for segmentation of the fornix (+ 0.01 and + 0.006 mean Dice increase for left and right fornix respectively), a tract that the current state of the art model struggles to segment. UNet3+ also outperforms the current state of the art when little training data is available. Additionally, manual architecture search found that a minor segmentation improvement is observed when an additional, deeper layer is added to the U-shape of UNet3+. However, all networks, including those designed via NAS, achieve similar results, suggesting that there may be benefit in exploring networks that deviate from the general U-Net paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.